If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Exactly. I had a woman here at work one time press her tits around the back of my neck while I was working on her computer. I'm not talking about she tried to lean over and grab something off her desk and her boobs brushed me. I mean she put her hands on my shoulders and made me a neck pillow. Now, I didn't find her to be very attractive, so I just shrugged her off and sat forward. I didn't reprimand her, or go to HR and get her fired. Why? Because if I HAD been attracted to her, I would've turned around and motorboated the shit out of those puppies. If I did something similar to a woman at work who did not find me attractive (good chance at that), I'd be out on my ass that day

Indeed. In fact, some women (EDIT: in fact plenty of men too) I know would expect a guy to be grateful he's getting that sort of attention. I suppose this attitude stems in part from how our sexual politics traditionally works. It's the guy who propositions the woman, and she either accepts or rejects that proposition. Thus, men are perceived as sexually available whereas women are perceived as sexually selective.

His point is that PAX banned the use of booth babes at conventions, while allowing for cosplayers to go around wearing much more reviling clothes without issue. So PAX doesn't have an issue with women being sexy, just if they're there as an employee of some company.

Seems a bit of a double standard or something. Can't have booth babes because they make people feel uncomfortable, but that chick walking around dressed as Poison or Witchblade or any girl from Dead or Alive is alright.

First: I don't object to 'booth babes' in principal. There are issues with their use in gaming but that's different.

There is, however, a huge difference between them and cosplayers. Notably the job of a 'booth babe' isn't just to stand there and look pretty in a skimpy outfit. It's to smile, take photos with the attendees (however gross they may be), flirt a little... basically make men feel like she likes them. They're also expected to put up with lewd comments, guys constantly staring and attendees having conversations with their boobs.

Cosplayers are not and should not be expected to do all that.

The fact that your post amply demonstrates that the average attendee can't tell the difference between the two is why they're a problem.

Or to put it another way, just because the Lara model at EA's booth smiled at you, flirted with you, put her arm around you to take a photo and laughed off your lewd comment doesn't mean you can just grab a Lara cosplayer around the waist, say 'nice tits' and then demand a photo.

First: I don't object to 'booth babes' in principal. There are issues with their use in gaming but that's different.

There is, however, a huge difference between them and cosplayers. Notably the job of a 'booth babe' isn't just to stand there and look pretty in a skimpy outfit. It's to smile, take photos with the attendees (however gross they may be), flirt a little... basically make men feel like she likes them. They're also expected to put up with lewd comments, guys constantly staring and attendees having conversations with their boobs.

Cosplayers are not and should not be expected to do all that.

The fact that your post amply demonstrates that the average attendee can't tell the difference between the two is why they're a problem.

Or to put it another way, just because the Lara model at EA's booth smiled at you, flirted with you, put her arm around you to take a photo and laughed off your lewd comment doesn't mean you can just grab a Lara cosplayer around the waist, say 'nice tits' and then demand a photo.

Also I'm not being hyperbolic here: this stuff happens.

I can tell the difference between a booth babe and a cosplayer, it's not difficult.

Next, neither cosplayers or booth babes should have to put up with anyone grabbing at them or treating them in a way they don't like. However, that's not the point people are trying to put across as to why booth babes are bad.

People say booth babes are bad because they make other women feel uncomfortable. People will say that the booth babes make women feel unwelcome and that this whole event just panders for men. So they banned booth babes because it was making people feel uncomfortable. They didn't ban the cosplayers who wear less though.

So the message that comes across is, women in skimpy outfits is cool, but not if they're working a booth. If you're going to ban anyone, why not start getting the message out that you'll just throw out any dude whose acting like he's at a frat party? Ban the thing that's actually an issue.

"Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

It's the atmosphere they create. And it's not just the outfit, it's the way they have to act: nice, flirty, etc. They don't have to put up with anyone grabbing them, but generally do have to put up with physical contact for photos. And that leads guys to think it's okay to do that with anyone dressed that way (or even not).

It's not just physical harassment. The booth models are there as eye-candy, they are there for men to stare at. Now staring isn't really a policeable behaviour (and nor should it be) but cosplayers should be able to attend without being constantly stared at by freaky guys. People don't do that stuff in the real world, and would do it less at cons if it wasn't basically encouraged by booth models.

Again, I don't object to booth models in principle, I don't think they degrade women at all and I think it's perfectly fine. But there's more than just the base level going on here.

To offer an imperfect analogy, there's a reason women feel uncomfortable at strip clubs, even if fully dressed themselves.

Banning booth babes was about trying to take the industry up a peg and make it more respectable, things like that, and not because "muh womynz".

As for actual attendees of PAX and other cons, they wanted representatives of game companies to be knowledgeable about the products they were representing. It makes a huge difference not having booth babes. I'm not offended by cute girls wearing barely any clothes nor do I really care about the societal implications. What I do care about, when I am at a place like PAX, is learning more about the games/industry I love. Not having booth babes means I've sat and talked with actual developers for a good period of time about their game and even about other games they like and what influences them as a developer. They don't just send interns and crap like that either, I was talking to the guy in charge of network technologies/IT or something (I forget his official title) at gearbox for an hour at the Nvidia booth last year.

Point is that not everything is about political correctness and avoiding being offensive, it's about business and putting on a good show.

It's not just physical harassment. The booth models are there as eye-candy, they are there for men to stare at. Now staring isn't really a policeable behaviour (and nor should it be) but cosplayers should be able to attend without being constantly stared at by freaky guys. People don't do that stuff in the real world, and would do it less at cons if it wasn't basically encouraged by booth models.

Let's not fool ourselves into this idea that 'booth babes' are somehow oblivious/innocent with regards to what they are there for in some capacity or likely to encounter at times. Similarly we should also recognize that some one choosing to dress up as a sexy space pirate at say Comic-con is expecting to get seen and probably photographed by strangers (go see norm's wondercon footage at www.tested.com to see)

In both situations there's appropriate and in appropriate behaviour, but if it's being instigated..it's by the person who should know better and respect peoples boundaries.

Let's not fool ourselves into this idea that 'booth babes' are somehow oblivious/innocent with regards to what they are there for in some capacity or likely to encounter at times. Similarly we should also recognize that some one choosing to dress up as a sexy space pirate at say Comic-con is expecting to get seen and probably photographed by strangers (go see norm's wondercon footage at www.tested.com to see)

In both situations there's appropriate and in appropriate behaviour, but if it's being instigated..it's by the person who should know better and respect peoples boundaries.

Cosplayers generally want people to take pictures of them, they didn't put all that work into their costumes for nobody to see it. You see them posing for pictures all over.

I do see a big difference between a woman dressing in a sexy costume purely because she wants to and a woman wearing the same outfit because someone (most likely a man) pays her to do it for marketing reasons. I won't go as far as to say that "booth babes" should totally be banned but it does feel sleazy to me on a "gut level".

I do see a big difference between a woman dressing in a sexy costume purely because she wants to and a woman wearing the same outfit because someone (most likely a man) pays her to do it for marketing reasons. I won't go as far as to say that "booth babes" should totally be banned but it does feel sleazy to me on a "gut level".

Is it not all choice at the end if the day? Afaik no ones forcing women to be booth babes.

Is it not all choice at the end if the day? Afaik no ones forcing women to be booth babes.

From one point of view I see your point. I guess the difference is that "booth babes" seem to reinforce sexist attitudes a lot more even if you could argue the "babes" themselves aren't really being discriminated against.

Where are these women being forced to be booth babes? That's what I always find amazingly ironic about all this. You have these guys rushing to say "booth babes are bad for the expos and these women are being exploited." Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. They're getting paid for it. They'll know what to expect. I love how these journos make it sound like these poor women are too stupid to realize they're there to look pretty.

"Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""

From one point of view I see your point. I guess the difference is that "booth babes" seem to reinforce sexist attitudes a lot more even if you could argue the "babes" themselves aren't really being discriminated against.

Are sexist attitudes tied down simply to appearance though Vs mindset? I mean in the grand scheme of things scantily clad women is a fairly recent phenomena as far as human history goes past Roman times. It's not really until you get to the 1960s and the sexual revolution that female flesh were really on public display that much outside of art galleries and pornographers, but sexism and the subjugation of women has been going on for thousands of years regardless.

Albeit a send up: -

You do kind of see traces of that pervasive attitude regularly in Mad Men where the women are simply regarded as servitors/sexual challenges/chattels whilst the men get on with the business (more so in the early series). I'm just wondering if there's not a degree of smokescreen to things in some way, and that it's a case that regardless of how a woman dresses some men are never going to see them as more than that?

Part of me also is concerned about a degree of dictation as to saying how people choose to use their sexuality, and I'm not entirely sure it's anyone's right to do that. There are a lot of women who've used their sexuality over the years to great success (from Marilyn Monroe through to Madonna and more latterly kim kardashian) and rightly or wrongly a lot of women identify with them. Who are we (men) to say what's acceptable? Is there not some degree of abhorrent presumption to that very idea?

Originally Posted by deano2099

And that's where the issue is. The line between appropriate and inappropriate differs between models and cosplayers.

If a guy creeps out a booth model, either through words, weird stalky behaviour or inappropriate contact (short of genuine assault), she's likely to brush it off. She's paid not to make a fuss.

And so the guy comes to believe that sort of behaviour is okay, and it becomes a lot harder for the cosplayers to tell the creeps to fuck off.

The problem is a lot more subtle than anyone is giving it credit for.

And again, if you don't think things work that way: strip clubs.

Are we not into the realms of second guessing what happens a bit there Dean?

Also I've never been to a strip club so I'm not sure how things work exactly, but my impression is 'hands on' is a no no and likely to result in expulsion at the hands of bouncers?

Are we not into the realms of second guessing what happens a bit there Dean?

Also I've never been to a strip club so I'm not sure how things work exactly, but my impression is 'hands on' is a no no and likely to result in expulsion at the hands of bouncers?

You miss the point. A woman going to a strip club as a punter would find herself attracting far more inappropriate behaviour than she would just going to a regular night club. She's not a stripper, but the presence of women in elevated positions there purely for objectification leads, at temporarily, to the men objectifying any women that are there.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with strip clubs. But if you're running a club and have strippers on, you don't go "Hey, how come not many women turn up to our club? I wonder what it could be?"

You miss the point. A woman going to a strip club as a punter would find herself attracting far more inappropriate behaviour than she would just going to a regular night club. She's not a stripper, but the presence of women in elevated positions there purely for objectification leads, at temporarily, to the men objectifying any women that are there.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with strip clubs. But if you're running a club and have strippers on, you don't go "Hey, how come not many women turn up to our club? I wonder what it could be?"

Thank you for clarifying. I guess my response would be 'where's the cut off and whose deciding that?'

Which again goes back to the need for a full investigative and in depth (and impartial) survey on these things.

It's not the way booth babes are dressed that's the issue, it's the way they are used. Booth babes say 'this is a male hobby, this convention is for men, women are here to be ogled'. Hiring them creates a creepy, strip club-lite atmosphere which is not inviting or inclusive to everyone.

Thank you. This argument provides at least a substantial distinction between cosplayers and booth babes, which is what I had been finding lacking thus far.

I still disagree that skimpily dressed cosplayers are not adding to an enivronment of "women are here to be ogled". Perhaps you could argue it's closer to "women that come here will be ogled" which implies it's not the sole purpose for their existance, does that make it acceptable?

Are sexist attitudes tied down simply to appearance though Vs mindset? I mean in the grand scheme of things scantily clad women is a fairly recent phenomena as far as human history goes past Roman times. It's not really until you get to the 1960s and the sexual revolution that female flesh were really on public display that much outside of art galleries and pornographers, but sexism and the subjugation of women has been going on for thousands of years regardless.

No I don't think that it's the only cause of sexist attitudes but it does give men the impression that women are there to arouse them with their sexuality rather than as equal participants in the convention.

Part of me also is concerned about a degree of dictation as to saying how people choose to use their sexuality, and I'm not entirely sure it's anyone's right to do that. There are a lot of women who've used their sexuality over the years to great success (from Marilyn Monroe through to Madonna and more latterly kim kardashian) and rightly or wrongly a lot of women identify with them. Who are we (men) to say what's acceptable? Is there not some degree of abhorrent presumption to that very idea?

This is a good point and a very tricky question. Personally, I have a problem with women (or men) using their sexuality and physical attractiveness to get ahead in life. I know this disagrees with some feminist orthodoxy and maybe it even makes me a closet sexist in some way (I hope not) but I don't think that someone like Madonna really empowered women just because she was in control of her own sexual objectification. Nothing wrong with sex but it shouldn't be something you make money out of.